Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds only the rough payload contents; it says nothing about auth, rate limits, or behavior for unknown slugs, which is acceptable given annotation coverage but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One tight sentence that leads with the action and parameter source, then the returned data. No filler; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the kind of data returned (job count, categories, tags), which is what an agent needs for a single-parameter read tool. Minor omission: it doesn't note behavior for a missing slug, but overall it is complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already gives the origin and an example ('gitlab') for slug. The description restates the same provenance for the single parameter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (get a company's profile) scoped by slug, and enumerates the returned payload (open remote job count, top categories, tags). It explicitly references list_companies, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling that enumerates companies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by slug (from list_companies)' implies the workflow — fetch the slug from list_companies first, then call this — which is useful routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative for other lookups, so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.